Via Eurekalert: Avoiding dangerous climate change: An international perspective
The world will need to make substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions below current levels over the next few decades if the worst impacts of dangerous climate change are to be avoided. This was a key conclusion from UK and US climate scientists at an international workshop on the UK AVOID program in Washington, DC exploring the most policy-relevant aspects of understanding dangerous climate change.
Latest results from AVOID have shown that strong mitigation action to limit temperature rise to below 2 °C avoids many of the climate impacts, but not all of them. Examples show that 50% of the impact of water scarcity, and almost 40% of the impact of decreasing crop suitability can be avoided through early action on greenhouse gas emissions. Time is short and delaying action reduces the chance of limiting temperature rise to 2 °C and increases the chance of significant impacts.
The AVOID program is a unique inter-disciplinary research collaboration across the physical sciences, climate impacts and the technical and socio-economic implications of climate change. AVOID is targeted to provide policy-focused research and evidence needed to allow policymakers to develop mitigation and adaptation policy that is strongly grounded in scientific evidence. This workshop, the first international meeting of AVOID, was designed to discuss, engage and partner with US scientists.
Jason Lowe, Head of Mitigation Advice at the Met Office, United Kingdom, and Chief Scientist for the AVOID program, said “This workshop has provided the opportunity to compare approaches in the UK and US to identify the results that are the most robust. The aim now is to work together to find concrete ways of taking forward the best UK and US science for the benefit of policymakers.
“Such work is essential to inform government policies both in the UK and the US with robust and up-to-date evidence.”
Peter Backlund, Director of Research Relations at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, and Director of NCAR’s Integrated Science Program, said “Designing mitigation and adaptation strategies to avoid dangerous climate change is a major challenge for the US, the UK, and other nations. Scientific research is critical for informing this process, but the scientific community needs to do a better job in focusing research efforts on issues that are central to making decisions about how to respond to climate change.
“The UK AVOID program, with its integration of research from multiple institutions across the physical, social, and economic sciences, is one of the best examples of delivering advice that is directly relevant to policymakers. The program is producing useful information about the probabilities of achieving emissions reductions, the consequences of different levels of emissions, and options for reducing impacts. I am hopeful that we can create a similar program here in the US.”
Participating UK and US scientists agreed to explore further options for collaboration in this area of science of relevance to policymakers.
Thanks, all, for responding to my post regarding China and carbon policy!
Please remember that China has about 1.3 billion people on a land area that is nearly equal to the USA, but concentrated in the coasts due to lack of arable land in the mountainous regions. The population densities of the urban areas is just stunning.
One unintended result of my visit was learning of some vast internal conflicts in China, essentially class warfare (rural vs. urban populations). It seems to me that China is following some modified form of the “Great Leap Forward,” whereby rural populations are being herded into vast, new company towns on the outskirts of the major financial centers (Shanghai, Bejing etc.), to populate new factories.
It was mind-boggling to view the scale of this movement, including vast new apartment complexes in the middle of nowhere, new roads & power plants etc. This in a country where you cannot flush toilet paper because the sewage treatment systems cannot accommodate the loading!
Also, one child/family policy is only being enforced on the rural populations, as the Chinese government is desperate to boost family size of the educated classes who are leading their economic revolution. Just amazing, out & out class warfare.
Anyone who thinks that the Chinese will do more than merely provide lip-service to global warming are ignoring history. These folks have a remarkable population dating back many thousands of years, and if nothing else, they are patient. They will sell us all the low-carbon technology that we wish to buy (batteries, windmills, solar panels etc.) and use the proceeds to leapfrog us by using conventional dirty power.
Therefore, the West cuts carbon emissions at our own risk. There’s nothing wrong with buying more efficient autos, industrial equipment etc., and this is good business policy that should be encouraged. However, by signing onto the de-industrialization of the west (per John Holdren’s recommendations of the 1970’s) and voluntarily reducing carbon emissions, the USA risks becoming the new Portugal of the world…a former great power, now irrelevant.
From: NeilT on September 18, 2010 at 1:14 am
Which means… what? Must you be so oblique? It seems to be an acute condition on your side, you like to watch us triangulate to figure out your point. What’s your angle? In any case, we know you think you’re right, even when we find you obtuse.
😉
Pascvaks says:
September 18, 2010 at 8:04 am
Actually, most of us do not feel that we are “on board the Titanic” but we do recognize in your post the eternal theme of impending catastrophe. It’s just modern makeover of the biblical Armageddon, end of days, mankind paying for sin theme. Perversely, there is an element of humanity that seems to obtain comfort from such thinking. On the other hand we try to concentrate on science, not superstition, on this site.
FYI, here is the article I mentioned regarding China’s urban population growth and mass migration:
http://english.eastday.com/e/100911/u1a5443052.html
davidmhoffer said at 9:30 am
May I also suggest …. that you read Art of War by Sun Tsu. It isn’t as much about war on the battlefield as it is about winning at minimum cost, without a battle at all if possible.
It’s highlighted, earmarked and sitting within arms reach.
davidmhoffer says:
September 18, 2010 at 9:30 am
<>….
Ignore what China says they are doing, ignore what they say about what we should be doing, ignore all the logic they present. Study instead what they are actually doing. Building fossil fuel infrastructure, investing in foreign fossil fuel reserves, and signing long term contracts. They’re even funding exploration as joint venture partners with western companies. So put aside what they say about what we should or should not do and why. It has little or nothing to do with their actual strategy, which is fossil fuel. The more we damage our own economy by accepting the AGW premise, the better it is for them, and they will be happy to lend us the money to buy the windmills and the rest of their manufactured goods until we go bankrupt.
<>
The Chinese are following the rule of Napoleon Bonaparte: “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”
comments to several posts above:
1. I did acknowledge that China uses a delay strategy … and they will
use it as long as possible. And they clearly forage global resources (land,
fuels, metals).
2. It does not remove the validity of the ‘first world jumps first’ argument.
3. China will keep all policy options open.
4. Although growing stronger all the time they cannot disregard the global
community, for economic reasons, no single country can.
5. Their domestic demand is presently not enough to sustain their growth rate.
For the domestic demand to increase, the low wage advantage will decrease.
6. We don’t know that strong growth will continue. In the 1980’s everyone
thought the Japanese would buy America (acc. to Mike Davis, City of Quartz).
7. To make the coal power plants clean will have high costs.
8. The PDSI drought index is already dropping in the NE/E of China. Even
a more moderate warming is excessive in view of the great water withdrawal in
the wheat-growing areas. Rice yields is likely decreasing because of warmer
nights (Tmin) even at present warming level.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7311/full/nature09364.html
Mikael Pihlström says:
September 18, 2010 at 4:02 am
1. Given that we (USA, Europe, USSR) have emitted the great share
of the carbon already in the atmosphere, it is indeed a good argument
and a prerequisite for any progress. …which won’t be politically easy, for sure, as China seems to adapt a strategy of delay.
=========================================================
Well Mikael, You know as well as I do that the reason given by China and India has nothing to do with the conclusions you so blithely state. If you have been around as long as I suspect you have you will know very well that what CRS, Dr.P.H. says is perfectly true. They have no intention of stopping using coal or any other carbon derived energy source for their development program. Nor do they give any credence to the AGW crap science from what I have been able to discern. So wake up to yourself Mikael.
Doug
From: NeilT on September 18, 2010 at 1:14 am
For god’s sake get a grip man!
Here in UK the CET has fallen dramatically over the past 3 years, and in the South East of the country the reservoirs are well within normal levels at this time despite people there having been advised a few years ago to plant desert gardens!
Climate scientists are out and out idiots with second rate degrees, and prove it with their every utterance. It’s time they got a real job sweeping the streets.
When this is all over, can we take out a class action for a refund of the Renewables Obligation levy on our utility bills?[snip]
CRS, Dr.P.H. says: September 18, 2010 at 9:53 am
Therefore, the West cuts carbon emissions at our own risk. There’s nothing wrong with buying more efficient autos, industrial equipment etc., and this is good business policy that should be encouraged. However, by signing onto the de-industrialization of the west (per John Holdren’s recommendations of the 1970′s) and voluntarily reducing carbon emissions, the USA risks becoming the new Portugal of the world…a former great power, now irrelevant.
========================================================
CRS, Dr.P.H. – I agree with your whole post at 9:53 am but particularly with the above. Got it in one!
Thanks – Doug
Being the defacto bank upon which the US floats it’s spending, China is in a perfect position to lobby AGW upon US policy.
Yeah, they are definately not interfering with our utopian illusion.
Quite the contrary, they appear to be feeding it until it pops, or we wake up and smell the coffee
The worst part of waking up, is finding paregoric in your cup.
Rabe says: September 18, 2010 at 7:43 am
Ammonite “Where will dry season waters come from if source glaciers melt too far?”
You got it the wrong way. The more they melt, the more water they spend. The more they grow, the less. BTW, we don’t use glaciers to regulate water flow, we use dams.
“The more they melt, the more water they spend” – until they are gone or can no longer sustain previous flow rates. And who are “we”? Loss of a glacier (or snow pack) is the equivalent of a dam running dry. This type of problem is being faced by Bolivia across the next decade or so. Consider the expense of building many dams where none were previously needed. Each class of problem at +3C will represent a haphazard tax on the nations affected. While a nation has a reserve things are manageable. If its reserve is spent (like a dam running dry) problems become dispropotionately difficult to deal with.
NeilT says: “Ooops. Second week in September. But the context is the same……”
LOL. Nice try. You were only 25% off. Not bad for climate science, which does well to get the decimal point in the right place.
Mikael Philstrom;
2. It does not remove the validity of the ‘first world jumps first’ argument.>>
The point is that they don’t believe it is a problem. The “first world jumps first” is just a ploy to convince us that they believe it is a problem but not their responsibility to fix, they lay the guilt trip in the first world instead. If they really believed it was a problem they would not be building out the massive fossil fuel infrastructure that they are, nor would they be making multi-decade investments to assure supply. So ask yourself, what are their scientists telling their government? It sure isn’t the same thing as our scientists are telling ours.
As for the “first world jumps first” argument itself, why do you suppose the first world is the first world? Why is the 3rd world the 3rd world? I shall answer that.
We are the first world because we earned it. We worked for it, we implemented democracy, market economies, rights for minorities and women, property rights and on and on. We invested in education, protected intellectual property, and lived by the rule of law. What did the 3rd world do during those decades? They fought wars against their own citizens, exterminated minorities, repressed free speech and thought, murdered dissenters, expropriated land and resources. They took hand out after hand out from the first world and squandered it. They are mired in corruption and repression, and the “you first” argument from them is nothing but a set up for another round of concessions and hand outs which they will also squander.
Robert Austin says:
September 18, 2010 at 10:50 am
I tend to be obtuse. Mea Culpa!
PS: National and worldwide Crusades trend toward great loss of life and treasure.
Let me remind you all:
“Without climate there is no environment.” (Holdren, US GOV)
Kadaka,
You are right about harvesting the ocean, it contains most of what we need.
However solar will not work without a team constantly cleaning the salt from the panels.
Wind , tide and wave generation would work as intermittent output would not be a bother. Grid connection for these devices is dumb as they are better pumps than generators.
Using these devices as pumps it is easy to produce electricity on demand, any land mass close to the ocean with elevation could have holding dams to run hydro when needed. No new technology needed and reliable power when needed.
Similarly these devices as pumps could desalinate water i.e. high pressure across a membrane equals freshwater.
These people involved in the renewable energy scene do not think outside the square. The AGW crowd seem to trapped inside a box with no way out and no way in for new thoughts.
How can these people sleep at night? I could understand the greens, but if all these scientists had an ounce of common sense they’d no this CO2 AGW is a pile of steamy stinking BS. There are too many people out there with common sense (I hope) to prevent the worst travesty in world history. OTOH, there are many drinking the cool aid after being brainwashed.
Jack Hughes Sep 18, 3:08 am
2oC comes from Co2 – Brilliant! I wouldn’t be surprised if this is actually a subliminal subconscious creation of which the author(s) are unaware.
NeilT is getting rather overexcited about … noisy data. A jerky line jerks both up and down (yawn!)
co2fan says: September 18, 2010 at 7:06 am
Ammonite ” Where will dry season waters come from if source glaciers melt too far? China, Vietnam…”
Haven’t you heard, Pachauri was wrong? Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035?
BTW: River water supplies for these countries come from the monsoons, not the glaciers.
co2fan, you might note that I specifically mention river response in the “dry season”. As for 2035, I suggest you take that up with Mr Pachauri as it does not appear anywhere in my text. If you are at all inclined, please review the current response of Tibetan plateau glaciers within the altitude range 3000 to 5000 meters. Consider the implications of their melt rate today (without regard to any potential future temperature rises).
NeilT said on September 18, 2010 at 1:15 am
18 days divided by 7 days per week equals 2 and 4/7 weeks elapsed. Looks to me like we are in the third week of September.
Must be that post-normal new math they use for (C)AGW calculations.
The FUTILITY of Mankind trying to Control Climate
On average world temperature is +15 deg C. This is sustained by the atmospheric Greenhouse Effect 33 deg C. Without the Greenhouse Effect the planet would be un-inhabitable at -18 deg C. The Biosphere and Mankind need the Greenhouse Effect.
Just running the numbers by translating the agents causing the Greenhouse Effect into degrees centigrade:
• Greenhouse Effect = 33.00 deg C
• Water Vapour accounts for about 95% of the Greenhouse Effect = ~ 31.35 deg C
• Other Greenhouse Gases GHGs account for 5% = ~1.65 deg C
• CO2 is 75% of the effect of all accounting for the enhanced effects of Methane and Nitrous Oxide GHGs = ~1.24 deg C
• Most CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, more than 93%
• Man-made CO2 is less than 7% of total atmospheric CO2 = ~0.087 deg C
• the UK contribution to CO2 is 2% equals = 1,740 millionths deg C
• the USA contribution to CO2 is ~20% equals = 17,588 millionths deg C
As closing carbon economies of the Whole World could only ever achieve a virtually undetectable less than 0.01deg C. How can the Green movement and their supporting politicians think that their remedial actions can limit warming to only + 2.00 deg C?
So the probability is that any current global warming is not man-made and in any case such warming could be not be influenced by any remedial action taken by mankind however drastic.
As this is so, the prospect should be greeted with Unmitigated Joy:
• concern over CO2 as a man-made pollutant can be discounted.
• it is not necessary to damage the world’s economy to no purpose.
• if warming were happening, it would lead to a more benign and healthy climate for all mankind.
• any extra CO2 is already increasing the fertility and reducing water needs of all plant life and thus enhancing world food production.
• a warmer climate, within natural variation, would provide a future of greater opportunity and prosperity for human development. This has been well proven in the past and would now especially benefit the third world.
Nonetheless, this is not to say that the world should not be seeking more efficient ways of generating its energy, conserving its energy use and stopping damaging its environments. And there is a real need to wean the world off the continued use of fossil fuels simply on the grounds of:
• security of supply
• increasing scarcity
• rising costs
• their use as the feedstock for industry rather than simply burning them.
The French long-term energy strategy with its massive commitment to nuclear power is impressive, (85% of electricity generation). Even if one is concerned about CO2, Nuclear Energy pays off, French CO2 emissions / head are the lowest in the developed world.
However in the light of the state of the current solar cycle, it seems that there is a real prospect of damaging cooling occurring in the near future for several decades. And as power stations face closure the lights may well go out in the winter 2016 if not before.
All because CO2 based Man-made Global Warming has become a state sponsored religion.
The quotes of AVOID participants are stellar examples of Post-Normal Science at work.
Remember that you probably saw it here first:
Ravetz, Ph.D., Jerome. “Climategate: Plausibility and the blogosphere in the post-normal age. [Part 1].” Scientific Blog. Watts Up With That?, February 9, 2010.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/09/climategate-plausibility-and-the-blogosphere-in-the-post-normal-age/#more-16262
———. “Jerry Ravetz part 2 – Answer and explanation to my critics.” Scientific Blog. Watts Up With That?, February 22, 2010. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/22/jerry-ravetz-part-2-answer-and-explanation-to-my-critics/
Ravetz, Ph.D., Jerome, and S. Funtowicz. “Post-Normal Science – Environmental Policy under Conditions of Complexity.” Philosophy. NUSAP net, 2001. http://www.nusap.net/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=13
“This was a key conclusion from UK and US climate scientists at an international workshop on the UK AVOID program in Washington, DC exploring the most policy-relevant aspects of understanding dangerous climate change.”
Uh oh, missionaries, with full personal carbon footprint dispensation of course. We pay for this tosh, in more than one way.